Search for: "Asbestos Products Liability v."
Results 461 - 480
of 553
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Oct 2009, 3:47 pm
UT Law Spring 2010 coastal courses: Climate Change Law & PolicyClass Unique #: 28633 Course #: 179M Instructor: Benjamin/Gholz Credits: 1Wednesday 5:30 pm - 7:30 pm Friday 1:30 pm - 4:30 pm Exam type: Early CLASS MEETS JANUARY 20-FEBRUARY 5.What the course is about. [read post]
5 Oct 2009, 9:55 pm
Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564 decision, it appeared manufacturers were immune from liability from asbestos containing component parts made by other entities but used in their products. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 10:02 am
From this past Friday, here comes Merrill v. [read post]
22 Sep 2009, 6:54 am
In other words, the fact that the defendants did not supply the asbestos-containing replacement parts did not shield them from liability. [read post]
11 Sep 2009, 7:59 am
The approach has been used in many cases ranging from exposure to toxic chemicals like, Agent Orange and asbestos, to products liability cases involving medical drugs and devices, such as the Dalkon shield and breast implants. [read post]
11 Sep 2009, 7:59 am
The approach has been used in many cases ranging from exposure to toxic chemicals like, Agent Orange and asbestos, to products liability cases involving medical drugs and devices, such as the Dalkon shield and breast implants. [read post]
11 Sep 2009, 7:59 am
The approach has been used in many cases ranging from exposure to toxic chemicals like, Agent Orange and asbestos, to products liability cases involving medical drugs and devices, such as the Dalkon shield and breast implants. [read post]
5 Sep 2009, 1:35 pm
Kreppein v. [read post]
21 Aug 2009, 7:50 am
The asbestos-containing products to which Mr. [read post]
21 Aug 2009, 7:50 am
The asbestos-containing products to which Mr. [read post]
21 Aug 2009, 7:50 am
The asbestos-containing products to which Mr. [read post]
31 Jul 2009, 2:39 pm
Universal Fails to Negate Plaintiffs' Enterprise Liability Claims Universal likewise fails to show any lack of proof that its asbestos-containing products were fungible, meaning they were unidentifiable as Universal products. [read post]
29 Jul 2009, 2:32 pm
[Kinsman v. [read post]
22 Jul 2009, 2:00 pm
Universal mistakenly asserts that it is not subject to the complaint's strict liability cause of action because it did not supply any asbestos-containing product to the West Facility. [read post]
10 Jul 2009, 3:18 pm
Specifically, in Bugosh, an asbestos litigation case, counsel argued that when the alleged harmful product was manufactured and supplied in 1965, mesothelioma, a condition caused by exposure to asbestos products was a medical unknown and to hold the supplier liable for a failure to warn of an unknown was unfair and illogical. [read post]
30 Jun 2009, 4:36 am
Bugosh v. [read post]
22 Jun 2009, 10:00 pm
(Think about the tertiary asbestos defendants, for example.) [read post]
21 Jun 2009, 5:20 am
North America, a successor of a supplier that sold non-asbestos products, liable for Edward Bugosh's exposure to asbestos. [read post]
19 Jun 2009, 3:17 pm
BANKRUPTCY LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, INJURY AND TORT LAW, PRODUCT LIABILITY Travelers Indemn. [read post]
16 Jun 2009, 8:38 pm
North America, Inc., No. 7 WAP 2008, as improvidently granted.Bugosh was the case that the Court had taken expressly to address whether to change Pennsylvania product liability law from its current idiosyncratic form of limited, but extreme, strict liability, to the more mainstream Restatement Third reasonableness-based approach.While the dismissal order gives no reason, Bexis (who filed an amicus brief for PLAC in Bugosh) believes that the status of the defendant as an… [read post]
